Archived: Woodside Court Supported Living

Woodside Court Supported Living is a supported living service providing personal care to up to 17 people. The service provides support to people with mental health needs and younger adults. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people using the service.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 5 people receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Medicines management was not always safe. This put people at risk of potential harm. However, we found no evidence anyone had been harmed and people and their relatives said they felt the service was safe. The provider’s quality assurance systems and processes were not always effective. The provider’s audits had not identified the issues we found during our inspection and action had not always been taken to resolve issues in a timely manner when issues had been identified.

Risks to people were assessed and there were plans to mitigate and manage risks. There were systems and processes to protect people from abuse and improper treatment. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and new staff were recruited safely. There were infection prevention and control procedures to prevent and control the spread of infection. Staff learned lessons when something went wrong.

There was a positive culture and the care and support people received was inclusive and empowering and achieved good outcomes for them. The provider, managers and staff understood their duty to communicate openly and honestly when something went wrong. The provider engaged people, their relatives, and staff in the development of the service. There were systems and processes to support continuous learning to improve care. Staff worked well in partnership with other services, organisations and agencies to provide people’s care and support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 10 October 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement based on the findings of this inspection.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We have identified a breach in relation to safe care and treatment and at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

We have also recommended the provider reviews their quality assurance systems and audit processes to ensure there are always effective.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Woodside Court Supported Living is a supported living service providing the regulated activity personal to men with mental health needs in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found.

People’s risks were assessed to mitigate the possibility of them experiencing avoidable harm. Where risks were identified the provider took action to reduce them. To address identified risks within the environment the provider worked with a number of agencies (including the local authority and specialist contractors) to keep people safe.

The registered manager and leadership team carried out daily audits to ensure people’s continued safety. The provider had an action plan and timetable in place to monitor the continued reduction of environmental risks.

Why we inspected

This targeted inspection was prompted by concerns raised regarding risks to people arising from environmental hygiene at the service. This inspection examined those risks. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the Safe section of this report.

We use targeted inspections to check concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively. This included checking the provider was meeting COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodside Court Supported Living on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was competent and leadership was visible at the service.

Staff understood people’s needs and preferences including the support they required to maintain their mental health. Staff received training to help them understand people’s needs as well as supervision to support them in their role. People were positive about the staff who supported them and developed positive relationships with staff. People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about their care.

People were supported with risks relating to their care, including their mental health needs, through suitable risk assessment processes. The provider assessed people’s needs, including risks, through discussions with people and reviewing professional reports. Detailed care plans were put in place setting out the support people needed from staff, based on people’s needs and preferences.

People were supported to regain their independent living skills to enable them to live independently in the future. People were provided with one meal a day and were supported to prepare their other meals themselves as part of regaining their skills. People were also supported to spend their time meaningfully doing activities they were interested in and to seek employment.

People were supported by staff who the provider checked were suitable to work with them. There were enough staff to support people safely and staff were allocated enough time to interact meaningfully with people.

People were safeguarded from abuse and the registered manager followed suitable processes when an allegation of abuse was made. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding as they received training to keep their knowledge up to date.

People’s risk of discrimination was reduced in relation to sexual orientation and the provider trained staff to understand how to promote equality and diversity.

People’s medicines were managed safely with systems to check people received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported with their day to day health needs and to access professionals they needed to maintain their mental and physical wellbeing.

People received care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood how to provide care in line with the Act and received training on this.

People and staff were encouraged to feedback on the service as part of improving the service. People’s concerns and complaints were responded to appropriately by the provider. The provider communicated openly with people, staff and professionals. The provider had good oversight of the service with systems to monitor, assess and improve the service.

This inspection took place on 20 January and 17 February 2016 and our first visit was unannounced. At our previous inspection in May 2014, we found the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were systems and processes to protect people from the risk of harm and staff were aware of safeguarding procedures. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work.

People were supported to have their health needs met. Staff at Woodside Court Supported Living worked well with other healthcare professionals to help make sure individual health needs were met. People’s medicines were managed safely and regular audits took place to make sure that people were having their medicines as prescribed.

Required statutory notifications were being submitted to CQC about certain incidents and events. Notifications are information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

Staff received training which gave them the knowledge and skills to support people effectively. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were asked for their consent to the care and support they received.

There was a system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints. The registered manager understood their role and responsibilities and positive feedback was received from staff about their leadership. There were effective systems in place to help ensure the safety and quality of the service provided.

Further work should take place to make sure that the personal care provided was subject to separate contractual arrangements to those for the person’s housing.

We saw that Woodside Court Supported Living Service aimed to help individuals transition back to living independently. The service opened in 2013 and there were five people living there at the time of our visit. Rotas showed one staff member was on duty at all times with additional support provided as required from the nearby Woodside Court care home where the majority of individuals had previously lived. People using the service and staff we spoke to said that this was a safe staffing level for the current occupancy level.

Staff confirmed that they had received safeguarding training and records we saw supported this. Individual staff members were able to tell us the right action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

We looked at the recruitment information kept for three staff members during our visit to Woodside Court Supported Living and found that safe recruitment and selection practices were in place.

Is the service effective?

People's assessed needs were being met by staff with the necessary skills and knowledge. We saw that staff had access to training and supervision that helped them do their jobs well.

Individual health and care needs were assessed and people were involved in care planning through regular one to one sessions with their key worker. We noted that the use of more specific measurable actions within individual plans could however benefit people using the service to reach their set goals.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us " 'everything is ok here', 'I have a key worker who I talk to' and "I feel safe, it's ok here'. They said they were treated with dignity and respect by staff.

We saw that people could be as independent as they wanted to be and were able to come and go from the service as they pleased. Assessments were undertaken and support was provided to individuals with their activities of daily living as required.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that the complaints procedure was clearly displayed in a ground floor communal area along with information about adult safeguarding and ensuring dignity in care.

Community meetings had taken place regularly with minutes available for February and April 2014. Further development of these regular forums may assist the service in ensuring that people were fully involved in the running of the home.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post. We saw that staff were motivated and felt supported in developing and improving the service.

We contacted a person using the services Community Psychiatric Nurse. They said their client was receiving support for their mental and physical health, daily living activities and social inclusion. The said the service was meeting their client's cultural needs and the quality of care they were receiving was excellent. They said they had no concerns regarding the service.